5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Chişinău[1]. At the time of the events the applicant was the principal of a high school in Chişinău.
6.  According to the findings of the domestic courts, on an unspecified date, the applicant was contacted by C., who requested that a pupil be transferred to the high school the applicant was a principal of. Since the applicant requested a bribe in exchange for the pupil’s transfer, C. contacted the police and, on 14 January 2004, an undercover operation was organised. For that purpose C. was instructed to meet the applicant and give him money marked with a special dust.
7.  C. contacted the applicant and they agreed to meet in the Chişinău central park. The scene was secretly observed by numerous police officers and filmed. However, later the police submitted that for technical reasons the actual transmitting of the bribe money had not been filmed. What had actually happened during the applicant’s meeting with C. was a matter of dispute during the criminal proceedings.
8.  According to the police, the applicant and C. did not shake hands upon meeting each other and sat on a bench for several minutes. C. gave the applicant the bribe money by placing it in a file belonging to the applicant. When apprehended, the applicant dropped the file and all of its contents, including the money, were scattered on the ground. It was later discovered that the applicant had traces of the dust from the money on his fingers.
9.  According to the applicant, he had been contacted by C. when going to the Ministry of Education and had agreed to meet him shortly afterwards in a park in the immediate vicinity to the Ministry. He shook hands with C. upon meeting him and, after a brief discussion, suggested they sit on a bench in order to be able to write. He placed his file between himself and C. and wrote on a sheet of paper a list of documents necessary for the pupil’s transfer. The applicant, who is missing an eye, did not see C. put the money into his file. When apprehended, he dropped the file. The bribe money was collected from the ground by a police officer, who later gave him a pen to sign the arrest report. The traces of dust on his hands must have come either from shaking hands with C. or from the pen with which he signed the minutes. The applicant alleged that he had been set up by the police.
10.  According to the applicant, during the arrest the police officers used unjustified violence as a result of which he suffered pain in his wrists. Between 2004 and 2005 the Ministry of Internal affairs issued several press releases in which it was stated, inter alia, that the applicant had taken a bribe from a parent. Several media outlets, including the national television station, reported on this. It does not appear that the applicant initiated proceedings against any of the media outlets or the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
11.  During the course of the proceedings the Buiucani District Court heard the applicant, seven prosecution witnesses and one forensic expert. The court also viewed the video of the undercover operation and examined other evidence, such as C.’s complaint to the police, the record of the marking of the bribe money with special dust, an expert report finding that following his apprehension the applicant had traces of the special dust on his fingers and a report concerning the search of the applicant’s office and home.
12.  The court considered C.’s testimony to the effect that the applicant had requested a bribe from him to be unreliable. The court also noted that C. and four other prosecution witnesses, all of whom were police officers, gave different accounts of the moment of the applicant and C. had met and, in particular, of the manner in which the bribe money had been transmitted. In that respect the court noted that according to three witnesses the money had been inserted by C. into the applicant’s file, which had been placed on the bench between the two men, while according to another witness the money had been handed by C. directly to the applicant. One of the witnesses, who was positioned directly in front of C. and the applicant during the undercover operation, did not see the money being transmitted at all. The court also found contradictions in the accounts concerning the shaking of hands by the applicant and C. The court also noted that the video of the undercover operation had not been helpful because, for unknown reasons, the filming had been interrupted precisely during the meeting between the applicant and C.
13.  In a judgment of 24 January 2006, relying on the above reasons, the Buiucani District Court acquitted the applicant. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide reliable evidence in support of the contention that the applicant had requested money from C. and that the applicant had been aware that C. had placed money in his file. In so far as the presence of traces of special dust on the applicant’s fingers was concerned, the court considered that it could not be ruled out that the traces appeared as a result of his shaking hands with C., picking up the money from the ground after apprehension or using a pen given to him by the police to sign the arrest report. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on an expert report stating that the special dust could have been transmitted in any of the above-mentioned ways.
14.  The Prosecutor’s Office appealed against this judgment.
15.  On 23 March 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal held a hearing at which the applicant, his representative and the prosecutor were present. The court upheld the appeal lodged by the prosecutor and reversed the judgment of the first-instance court. In so doing the Court of Appeal did not hear the witnesses anew but merely gave a different assessment to the testimonies given by them by the first-instance court. The Court of Appeal considered all the witness statements to be reliable and did not find any major contradictions between them.
16.  The applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to a criminal fine of 60,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 3,350 euros (EUR)) and to five years’ imprisonment suspended for two years. The applicant was also prohibited from occupying any administrative post for a period of three years.
17.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment and argued that the witnesses on whose testimonies his conviction had been based were not credible. In particular, he submitted that C. was being investigated in two separate cases by the police station which had organised the undercover operation. He also submitted that all the prosecution witnesses had been police officers. One of those witnesses could not objectively have seen what had happened from the distance at which he was located because he had serious problems with his eyesight. The applicant also argued that the police had deleted a part of the video of the undercover operation because it was not favourable to the prosecution and submitted that he had been the victim of entrapment.
18.  On 21 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice examined the applicant’s appeal in the absence of the parties and declared it inadmissible.
19.  The applicant also lodged and extraordinary appeal with the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice in which he claimed a breach of Article 6 of the Convention. However, on 19 February 2007, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal.